people, it will be easy to prove that a government composed of a
monarchy, an oligarchy chosen by the Crown, and such a House of
Commons, whatever good can be in such a system, can by no means be a
system of free government.

The Constitution of England is never to have a quietus; it is to be
continually vilified, attacked, reproached, resisted; instead of
being the hope and sure anchor in all storms, instead of being the
means of redress to all grievances, itself is the grand grievance of
the nation, our shame instead of our glory. If the only specific
plan proposed--individual, personal representation--is directly
rejected by the person who is looked on as the great support of this
business, then the only way of considering it is as a question of
convenience. An honourable gentleman prefers the individual to the
present. He therefore himself sees no middle term whatsoever, and
therefore prefers of what he sees the individual; this is the only
thing distinct and sensible that has been advocated. He has then a
scheme, which is the individual representation; he is not at a loss,
not inconsistent--which scheme the other right honourable gentleman
reprobates. Now, what does this go to, but to lead directly to
anarchy? For to discredit the only government which he either
possesses or can project, what is this but to destroy all
government; and this is anarchy. My right honourable friend, in
supporting this motion, disgraces his friends and justifies his
enemies, in order to blacken the Constitution of his country, even
of that House of Commons which supported him. There is a difference
between a moral or political exposure of a public evil, relative to
the administration of government, whether in men or systems, and a
declaration of defects, real or supposed, in the fundamental
Constitution of your country. The first may be cured in the